I am not saying anything about your guns but I have seen some Americans say that they want to have their ~~5th~~ 2nd Amendment rights to defend against an autocratic government. But what do they mean by that? I mean if government decided to go against the population can people even fight back?
​
The government will have Police, Army and even nukes add that to top class equipment and way more trained people than the regular populace so not sure how some normal people with guns can stop the Government forces who have way better arms and personnel.
47 comments
This dude thinks the government would nuke itself lmao
A government nuking its own country would be incredibly stupid, so that’s irrelevant
Police and military are supposed to serve the constitution, not the government. So if the government starts going against the constitution, those two forces should *theoretically* not participate
Even still, there’s millions of gun owners in the country, it would be hard for any military or police that stuck around to defeat them
I’m sure there are people that believe this
1. It’s the 2nd Amendment you’re referring to, not the 5th. The 5th refers to the right against self-incrimination in Court.
2. Being able to overthrow the government is the entire reason the 2nd was written. It’s not some vague, niche interpretation, it’s the whole reason it exists. It’s like asking if people think that the 1st Amendment means you can practice any religion you want, as if that was a weird thought to have.
3. The government isn’t going to nuke itself. That’s stupid.
4. As the army and the police where they stand politically, and you’ll see why they aren’t quite as big of a concern as you think.
5. Nukes, drones, tanks, etc work only when there is a centralized enemy in one location. Gun owners are anything but. If there was a concerted effort to overthrow the government you’d need the army to be everywhere at once. They’d be impossibly outnumbered while being spread impossibly thin, and that’s assuming absolutely no troops defect, which some absolutely would. You can’t win such a war with tanks and bombs alone, you’d need boots on the ground, which is where the efforts would fail.
The taliban is just laughing.
Yes, but it’s more the case that being armed serves as a deterrent to coercion by shifting the cost/benefit of a government imposing rule by force. If the government wants to force a given community to do something it doesn’t want to do, making them do it is a lot easier if they can’t resist.
>5th Amendment
2nd Amendment
>The government will have Police, Army and even nukes add that to top class equipment and way more trained people than the regular populace so not sure how some normal people with guns can stop the Government forces who have way better arms and personnel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
Nuking your own cities because the rebels are there is a great way to destroy your own legitimacy as a government and be defeated.
Wars aren’t a board game where tanks roll for damage against infantry and whoever doesn’t die wins, and you don’t win just by killing more of the opponent than you lose. You win by achieving the goals you want.
>The government will have Police, Army and even nukes add that to top class equipment and way more trained people
The Taliban were pretty successful at defeating both the Soviet and American invasions.
Though Grozny was destroyed, the Chechens outlasted even Putin’s brutality.
Right now, insurgencies are being fought against better equipped gov’t forces in Myanmar.
Contrast that against the unarmed pro- Democracy protesters in Hong Kong; they lost their rights within a couple years.
In an American context, the trouble would be in convincing the police and military to turn their weapons on their countrymen. Some would follow those orders, but many would not. Regardless, many believe in a *duty* to resist a tyrannical autocracy, irrespective of the likelihood of success.
If the gov’t nuked its own people, there would be nothing left to conquer, and it would be a global pariah.
Yes, some Americans believe they can use firearms to defend themselves against the government. That’s sort of how we were formed as a country.
Yes. If you want I can go into the various factors that would tilt a conflict one way or the other but I can be quick and say that the military already lost a war in Afghanistan, a country with a far lower population with a far shallower skill pool to draw on, and having none of the policy obstacle that come with civil wars.
Not individually, and you are assuming that all military personnel and police officers will stick with the government in that scenario. We started out by kicking out one of the world’s strongest powers at the time. We have mechanisms in our government structure to remove people and limit the government’s power. You can only stretch a rubber band so far before it breaks. It is our duty to remove tyrants from our government.
More like it will be a lot harder and noisier to round up undesirables. If you can’t keep it quiet it’s a lot less tempting to try it.
If you think “it can’t happen here”… well I have known enough Germans, Russians, Cambodians etc. to know there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them. It happened in their countries so I assume it could happen to mine.
That standoff in Oregon back in 2016 suggests we can. The federal government actually took the situation *slowly* and was reasonably polite. Meanwhile, Oregon’s state government was begging the feds to ‘bring the hammer down.’
Yes, they believe that they will vigilante out of any situation including against the US government, and frankly that was the actual conception of 2A. To form a well organized militia to protect your community.
That…is the point. People will.of course say “but a shotgun can’t take on a drone!” Really? Then why is one of the first steps of every authoritarian government to seize personal arms. If they don’t see a threat, then why take that action? Confiscation of arms is a red line that the government has been told will violate the social contract of the land, aka the Consitution. In fact the whole Bill of Rights reads as a “if your government does this, then it’s tyrannical” checklist.
U.S. military doctrine estimates that one trained service member can handle five insurgents. Obviously, there is room for debate with that estimate, but the takeaway is that it would take substantial resources to fight against armed citizens.
If US citizens decide to push back against an autocratic government, the challenge of distributing weapons is already accomplished. Guns are everywhere and it is nearly impossible for the government to control their distribution.
The stereotype of untrained citizens owning firearms isn’t necessarily true. Most US citizens with firearms have some type of training. It’s required for a lot of states. If tensions escalate to that level, I have to assume that not all of the military, police, and other government law enforcement will stay loyal to the United States and will add to the trained resistant force.
So the short answer to your question is, yes. The resources needed to defend against an armed population will be immense and the logistics of small arm weapon distribution is already accomplished. An armed society, even today, can put up a fight against an autocratic government.
If the government is doing something aggregations that you feel justified in using force, you don’t really care about whether it’s “legal or not.” It’s a deterrent effect. And no I’m not a gun nut. But look at china – there’s no way our government would try to do zero covid nonsense here. They know the people wouldn’t comply and could fight back. Government serves the people.
I feel like you’re trying to get a very specific answer here for whatever reason
There are roughly 1M soldiers and 1M cops of various sorts in the US. There are over 80M official gun owners but when you count gun owning families, that jumps up to 150M. And there are 400M guns in the hands of the public.
Even if you believed every soldier and cop sided with the govt, and only 10% of the gun owning public was active in opposing the govt, you still are looking at numbers that greatly favor the people.
https://imgur.io/MqW14aW
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
History is littered with insurgencies that subdue great powers.
Using Nukes and heavy weapons in asymmetrical warfare is counterproductive at best.
It’s not about tactical defeats. It is about denying pacification by armed forces undergoing police actions.
I’m a liberal, will probably never own a gun, in favor of stronger restrictions on the ability to obtain firearms, etc. I’ve never been particularly convinced though, that arming the populace wouldn’t have a major effect on the outcome of a civil war. The scenario you’re positing—the full might of the US Military, Paramilitaries and the police turned against the populace, with soldiers having mo compunctions about targeting their own countrymen, even towards a small geographical area—seems extremely unlikely, and especially unlikely to occur so suddenly that high tech, destructive, weaponry is deployed before any kind of resistance could develop.
That said, while I do believe an armed populace can effect a political change, I think that on balance the abundance and ease of obtaining firearms has been a greater tool of oppression and tyranny, than it has been in resisting them.
Guns are a tool of oppression when they infiltrate minority communities, leaving citizens in fear of criminals. When citizens are left in fear of masa shootings at schools, shopping centers, and bars. When activists talk about taking away the power of your vote in favor of “second amendment solutions” toward politicians they despise or gather in state capitals or DC.
An armed populace has the power to effect political change. But, at least in the present day, it’s a tool of fear and tyranny, not against them.
Even the government thinks the people can over throw it. Just look at the reaction to the events of Jan. 6th.
They deployed more troops in DC than they had in Afghanistan at the time because they took the threat of some yokels with small arms over throwing the government.
Which they should have as history is filled with successfully rebellions and revolutions. It is literally how thr US was founded.
It worked about 250 years ago.
Yes. A bunch of goat herders who live like it’s the 19th century beat the US government with hand-me-down Russian AKs that were beat to shit.
If a war broke out, the US has to rely on a voluntary military to have the will to fight against they’re own people. If they do, we’re far better equipped than the Taliban.
It would be a revolution of power.
Yes people have this fantasy.
“The hunters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia alone would comprise the largest army in the world.”
That’s hunters, I know plenty of men and women with weapons that don’t hunt. So, true the Gov’t has Police, the Military with tanks, jets etc… but good luck walking down the street. If the USG ever went “Rouge” and tried to completely dominate life in America, I don’t think they could take WV and they only have 250,000 hunters. That is a hella lot of scoped, large Caliber weapons to contend with and there are a couple of mountains in that state.
Then, we have how many combat Vets in the general population? almost 2 million? I’ve 5 Marines in my family alone, we train to shoot out to 500 meters and we go shoot at twice that distance. Do you think that many Vets are going to warm up to a USG takeover? Ah, nope!
It’s all good if you’re white. Thousands of Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps, and nobody came to their aid.
Yes. There are a lot of people who envision themselves magically becoming Rambo in the event of a civil war. Most of these people can’t run a mile or read a map.
Of course, you have to realize not all the military are going to side with the government. The US citizens make up one of the worlds largest armed forces. You watched as a group of unarmed civilians breached the U.S. capital. while politicians hid some of them crying in their closets, what makes you think That the government (politicians) would be able to maintain any control. There’s a chance entire states and their military would succeed…..It’s not as simple as, the government has all the guns, look at Afghanistan for example…..
The people that say that the Americans who do have guns could “never defend themselves against the U.S. government” have always stunned me with their ignorance. They think that because the they do not have the tanks and drones that it would hardly be possible. This is all despite the existence of successful insurgent groups or the fact that we had just spent the past 20 years fighting tribal goat-herders in the mountains with Soviet-era weapons. Then again, I try to no longer be surprised by a person’s capacity for stupidity.
You’re assuming the military would side with the government. If we’re at that point we’re in open civil war, and experience tells us that the military, police, etc. would split. Plus, the individual States have their OWN military units that are under control of the Governor. That includes land, sea, and air forces.
It’s far from certain the Feds would win this time around.
A large amount of the populace has arms and there’s a heavy former military presence everywhere in the country. If the government goes against people they are in trouble here lol
Yes, some do. It’s why the amendment exists. We literally became a country because we revolted.
That said, it would be difficult for us to have an autocratic government for real right now. We have a lot of checks and balances. We are very decentralized. We say “the government” but it is huge. You have the federal government which is three branches but then every state has their own set up too.
It’s very important to point out that our military isn’t beholden to a person. Yes the President is Commander in Chief, but if the upper echelons at the Pentagon don’t agree, well, then the person doesn’t have an army. My dad was military for nearly 30 years and in his mind, his job was tied to the protection of democracy and the Constitution. From those I have known in the Armed Forces, they would sooner turn on an autocrat than join him. Which means we win.
As for the police, we are decentralized. Our police forces are set up by state and then county/town. It isn’t a monolith. There’s shady officers but I don’t even think the shady ones would turn on the population *for an autocrat*. Usually the a-hole ones are arrogant and like power. But even they are *from here*. They would have to turn on their own neighbors and they at least like some of them.
And no one is going to agree to drop a nuke. If we are at that point, the whole world must be burning.
Besides the other comments about how it worked out for the Soviets in Afghanistan, I’ll also point out that the U.S. military takes and oath to uphold the constitutional the United States, so any order contrary from the President on down would be an unlawful order. It’s reasonable to think that in such a government vs citizens apocalyptical scenario, a substantial portion of the U.S. military will uphold their oath and take their toys with them. An armed population on their side will help.
>The government will have Police, Army and even nukes add that to top class equipment and way more trained people
…and where do these “trained people” live? Where, exactly, are the houses belonging to their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins? These “trained people” with machine guns, rockets, missiles, jets, tanks, and artillery will be laying waste and destroying cities and neighborhoods.
Where, exactly, do the children of these Police, Army, and Nuke launchers live?
The OP is from another country and was asking questions and many of you weren’t very nice. (snarky, sarcastic) Isn’t the point of this subreddit to help non Americans learn about the US?
If it ever came to it a good chunk of the military, police and government officials would also switch to the “other” side. It would be horrific, bloody and have a huge toll on our country emotionally and economically.
Which is exactly the point. Avoid it at all costs but should something happen the American people are able to make it a drawn out and costly choice that’s unlikely to happen or be truly successful.
> The government will have Police, Army and even nukes add that to top class equipment and way more trained people than the regular populace
No to all of this.
First, the police will scatter at the first sign of real resistance from the populace. Look at what happened at Uvalde. Kids and teachers under direct attack and they did nothing. Imagine what happens if the US ever has an armed rebellion? The police will turn tail and run. So, most of them will be out of the game.
Second, the military will fracture at any sign leadership is actively going to turn against the American people and become violent toward them. You’ll likely have entire military bases full of equipment refuse to follow those orders.
As far as having more trained people than the general populace, that’s nonsense. The US military graduates around 4,000 special operators every year and we have over 15 million veterans. We have thousands and thousands of people that are trained specifically to train insurgents and millions of veterans willing to heed a call to arms against tyranny.
In contrast, the US military has only 1.4 million people in it worldwide. Think about those numbers, then add an armed, educated populace that those ex-special operators can easily turn into an insurgency. Then consider how many people in the US own firearms and how many actively use them to hunt. We have more guns than people.
Sorry, but any government that sets its sights on taking over the US violently without the consent of the populace here is going to have a bad time. It’s not going to be easy, it’s not going to be fun, and eventually the narrative will be spun enough worldwide that they’ll try to bring in the UN and foreign troops… and that’s when shit gets really hot.
I mean, I guess I wouldn’t put it past the government necessarily, but I find it unlikely they’d just nuke their own country to get rid of the undesirables. That’d be like if you broke into my house and I met you in the living room with a hand grenade; sure it would work but it’d kinda defeat the purpose of defending my properly since it would kill me and annihilate my home in the process.
Besides, in order for a tyrannical government to enforce its will on the people it needs boots on the ground. A tank or a fighter jet can’t go door to door looking for contraband or handing out no-assembly edicts. It’s that kind of state aggression that am armed populace is capable of dealing with.
If you kill a patrol of autocratic forces well new you’ve got military gear so it can even out some of the odds.
You’ve also got to think how many body bags does it take before traitors who support the autocrats change their mind? Sure Billy Bob can’t go toe to toe but he uses his rifle and kills your husband, then your son, then your next son, and the government now wants to send your daughter to same spot maybe you’ll stop supporting said government. The north vietnamese killed enough Americans we lost on the home front, why wouldn’t the same happen in the US with tyrants being killed.
Here’s some thoughts .
They said the same thing in the 1770’s.
Most police, military, etc wouldn’t even fight for them.
There are far more veterans than active duty. And they have seen first hand how a uncontrolled militia can fight our military. And they will use that knowledge.
It wouldn’t take long before another country would help us to fight back, such as France during the revolution.
I would rather die where I stand than live in a country that would use its military against its citizens.
There’s a little something you are forgetting. The passion for a fight, such as we’ve witnessed in the Ukraine and the Middle East, can sometimes outweigh the benefits of a unified military controlled by a government.
When you’re fighting against ideology, you can never defeat it. Another lesson learned in the Middle East.
A big part of the reasoning there, and being the 2nd amendment is just the threat to politicians. You may be right that a rough militia of citizens cannot defeat an organized army, but every individual politician will absolutely be at real risk for his own life. Will a person move to make or country autocratic when he knows he might not survive it? Or just keep gifting and take advantage of the legal benefits or representatives get? The latter is much more logical.
Yes. That is how the country was born. It is also how virtually all of modern warfare is conducted.
To quote some other idiot who already bothered to write it out,
>Listen, you fantastically r*tarded motherfucker. I’m going to try to explain this so that you can understand it You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street comers. And enforce “no assembly” edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of ts people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to tum everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state itis vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them Dumb. Fuck
That *is* the purpose of the second amendment.
The second amendment has restricted the government from it’s more authoritarian tendencies.
>The government will have Police, Army and even nukes add that to top class equipment and way more trained people than the regular populace so not sure how some normal people with guns can stop the Government forces who have way better arms and personnel.
You assume it’s just going to be the military vs citizens. If we ever do get to the point of armed revolution, it wont just be people with rifles vs tank, planes, etc. Entire states would resist, so there would already be a leadership structure in place. The national guards and police would most likely chose to support their state. The military would not just go along with the federal government either. Sure, there might be more control over them by the federal government, but in a society that fractured, military bases located in resisting states would be taken over, maybe even handed over. As far as nukes go, their use would only bolster support for the resisting states. And you really don’t want to glass the areas you are trying to govern anyway, so I don’t think they would be used. And to top it off, we have more guns that our entire population in private hands. I’m not saying an armed revolution against an authoritarian government in the US would win, but to write it off or even say it would be at a disadvantage is silly and assumes a very simplistic view of all military force vs. Civilians with light arms.
I mean, Vietnam and Afghanistan did a pretty good job of fighting off our military and they didn’t have much more than rifles.
That *IS* the reason why 2A exists. Not for hunting, not for home defense, but for fighting back against tyranny.